Antony Dominic, J.

1. These revision petitions were referred to be heard by a Larger Bench doubting the correctness of Sasi v. Bindu S.J. George 2015 (4) KLTSN 36 (C. No. 40) : 2015 (4) KHC 580). in O.S. 23/2000, the Sub Court, Kochi passed a decree for realisation of Rs. 2,10,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. In E.P. 73/02 filed by the decree holder, Rs. 2,733/- was attached from the salary of the fourth judgment debtor. The attachment continued for 24 months. Subsequently, for realisation of the balance decree debt, E.P. 13/05 was filed and on 18.6.2008, that E.P. was dismissed for default. Still later, E.P. 17/13 was filed for the same purpose wherein the fourth judgment debtor contended that his salary has already been attached for 24 months in the earlier E.P., and, therefore, is finally exempted from attachment in view of the provisions contained in S. 60(1)(i) of C.P.C. That plea was rejected and the Execution Court ordered attachment of Rs. 7,000/- per month from salary. This order is challenged by the fourth judgment debtor in C.R.P. 721/14.

2. In the aforesaid E.P., the Execution Court attached Rs. 3,000/- per month from the salary of the second judgment debtor. The decree holder is impugning that order in C.R.P. 60/15 contending that the amount attached from the salary of the judgment debtor is far below "such portion of the salary as is liable for attachment" under S. 60(1)(i) of the C.P.C.

3. When the CRPs came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the petitioner in C.R.P. 721/14 relied on the judgments of this court in Suseela A.K. v. Inasu & Anr. (2007 (4) KLT 692) and Sasi v. Bindu S.J. George 2015 (4) KLT SN 36 (C. No. 40) : 2015 (4) KHC 580). The learned Single Judge considered the matter and passed Reference Order doubting the correctness of the judgment in Sasi's case (supra).

4. We heard the counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the judgment debtors.

5. Before us also, the counsel for the revision petitioners contended that as per S. 60(1)(i) C.P.C., once any part of the portion of the salary liable to attachment has been under attachment for a total period of 24 months, the salary of the judgment debtor shall be finally exempted from attachment in execution of that decree. According to them, since attachment was in force for 24 months in E.P. 73/02, there cannot be any further attachment of the salary. To substantiate this plea, reliance was placed on Suseela's case and Sasi's case (supra), and also the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in Biman Kumar Biswas v. M/s. Commercial Engineering Corporation Pvt. Limited & Ors. AIR 1983 Cal 45) and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Prabhudas v. Usirikayaia Venkata Ramana & Anr. (AIR 2012 A.P. 13).

6. However, counsel for the decree holder contended that the view taken in the aforesaid judgments are against the plain language of the proviso to S. 60(1)(i) and according to him, the benefit of exemption provided therein is only to the part of such portion of salary liable to attachment and was under attachment. According to him, insofar as these cases are concerned, part of the portion of the salary liable for attachment and under attachment, is not sought to be attached again and, therefore, the view taken by the Execution Court ordering attachment is perfectly legal.

7. We have considered the submissions made.

8. Answer to the issue referred for the consideration of this court would depend upon the manner in which the provisions of S. 60(1)(i) of the C.P.C. and the proviso thereto are understood. Therefore, this provision is extracted below for easy reference:

"60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree.- (1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation an